Attention!!! Pro Sports Daily will be down on Wednesday morning from 5:00am - 7:00am eastern time for database maintenance. All Sports Direct Inc. properties will be down during this scheduled outage.
Sorry for any inconvenience that this outage may cause.

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Everyone reading this should know that the Mets have been through severe financial problems in the last few years. Some were a result of the ownership group’s relationship with Bernard Madoff, but some were not.

Last night, Michael Salfino, who writes for the Wall Street Journal, Yahoo! Sports and used to have a blog around these SNY parts (the now defunct SNYWhyGuys) tweeted that the Mets were broke.

He deleted his original series of tweets, but I retweeted one. Note, I edited it to keep it under 140 characters and use the old-style retweet, but did not change the meaning. Amazin Avenue has a screenshot of the original.

Brian Costa of the Wall Street Journal wanted to make sure that it was clear that Salfino’s report did not come from the Journal, but also did not attack the statement as true or false on the merits, tweeting as a follow-up: “That’s not an attempt to discredit what he [Salfino] wrote.”

Salfino himself then walked away from his own statements, tweeting, “I have no knowledge of the Mets financial situation other than hearsay.” There was also a long string of tweets that included apologies to the Mets, and ones designed to insulate the Journal by declaring that he was not a WSJ employee. Just because it is hearsay does not make Salfino’s original contention not true.

What to make of all of this?

The Mets certainly are operating like a team with tight budget restrictions. Releasing Jason Bay, he of the -1.3 bWAR in 2012, to defer payments from 2012 to some date in the future and open a roster spot now is partially an argument that the team needs every penny now. On the other hand, the move was not purely financial. The 40-man spot freed by releasing Bay has value too, and will require the Mets to spend at least a little money to find someone to fill it.

The nice thing about Salfino’s assertion, or more precisely, his source’s assertion, is that it’s eminently testable. If the Mets do not extend David Wright or RA Dickey, his guy will be on point. If the team does extend Wright or Dickey, Salfino will just be the latest guy on twitter with lousy information.

I know we have discussed it (like every week) on the Mostly Mets Podcast, but I’m not sure I have written it here, so now I will: if either Wright or Dickey is not extended this winter, the Mets must trade that player. Both guys are too valuable for the team to let them walk via free agency while returning only draft picks, as the team did with Jose Reyes. If Wright or Dickey are to be part of the Mets’ future, they must sign extensions before Opening Day 2013.

In terms of talking about the Mets’ choices this winter, despite that similarity, it’s really time to split Wright from Dickey. (As an aside, did you realize that both Wright and Dickey’s middle name is Allen?)

First, the Mets hold a $16 million dollar option on Wright. It seems likely that they would be able to extend him with no raise, or at most a very small raise for the 2013 baseball season. Wright, who will be 30 on Opening Day 2013, is coming off his best year, by OPS+ since 2007. Wright’s price is rising to scary levels (7 years and $120 million dollars) but given his value, age, and history of production, keeping him probably represents the Mets best chance of winning in the near to medium term.

Dickey is in a different situation. The Mets hold a $5 million option on him for 2013 with a $300,000 buyout. Any extension (say $25 million over 3 years on the low end) would very likely increase his 2013 base salary. Since the Mets also need between one and three outfielders, catching help, and bullpen reinforcements, that raise could blow up their limited 2013 budget. Dickey wants to remain a Met, but he might not have a choice. Trading one year of RA Dickey, who will be 38 in 2013, and potentially coming off a Cy Young Award season, should return young, cheap talent the Mets can use to build their next winner. Unless Dickey is willing to sign an extension with a small enough raise for 2013, that the Mets would still be able to address the team’s other shortcomings, the team should be willing to turn his feel-good story, and mound dominance into talent that will be employed past 2013.

Broke? Not broke? Extend? Not extend? Trade? Not Trade? The decision points are coming. The Baseball Winter Meetings begin in Nashville on December 3.

Dickey is in a different situation. The Mets hold a $5 million option on him for 2013 with a $300,000 buyout. Any extension (say $25 million over 3 years on the low end) would very likely increase his 2013 base salary. Since the Mets also need between one and three outfielders, catching help, and bullpen reinforcements, that raise could blow up their limited 2013 budget. Dickey wants to remain a Met, but he might not have a choice. Trading one year of RA Dickey, who will be 38 in 2013, and potentially coming off a Cy Young Award season, should return young, cheap talent the Mets can use to build their next winner. Unless Dickey is willing to sign an extension with a small enough raise for 2013, that the Mets would still be able to address the team’s other shortcomings, the team should be willing to turn his feel-good story, and mound dominance into talent that will be employed past 2013.

The irony here is that if Dickey weren't so good, if he were merely mediocre, they'd have no problem keeping him. Because he's a Cy Young award winnerr, they'll have to let him go. Moral of the story: Only poor to mediocre players can stay on the Mets. All Stars much be jettisoned as soon as their contract is up.

This is why the Mets will suck for as long as the Wilpons are the owners.

The irony here is that if Dickey weren't so good, if he were merely mediocre, they'd have no problem keeping him. Because he's a Cy Young award winnerr, they'll have to let him go. Moral of the story: Only poor to mediocre players can stay on the Mets. All Stars much be jettisoned as soon as their contract is up.

This is why the Mets will suck for as long as the Wilpons are the owners.

The irony here is that if Dickey weren't so good, if he were merely mediocre, they'd have no problem keeping him. Because he's a Cy Young award winnerr, they'll have to let him go. Moral of the story: Only poor to mediocre players can stay on the Mets. All Stars much be jettisoned as soon as their contract is up.

This is why the Mets will suck for as long as the Wilpons are the owners.

That is absolutely rediculous. You don't think you might be just a little bit biased, do you? You sound like a petulent baby whose parents are taking away his candy. Ooooh, if my candy wasn't so good, you'd let me keep it. You just want it because you're selfish and you want it for yourselves. Boo hoo! Boo hoo!

This is a business. If they can get value for Gee, a decent player but no star, they will trade him in a heartbeat. And if they can't get elite prospects for Dickey and he is willing to sign an affordable extension, they'll keep him. But don't whine about the fact that they may trade him only because he won the C.Y. or he is too good and they don't really want to win. They may trade him because the return they can get will result in a better long term outcome than keeping him.

That is absolutely rediculous. You don't think you might be just a little bit biased, do you? You sound like a petulent baby whose parents are taking away his candy. Ooooh, if my candy wasn't so good, you'd let me keep it. You just want it because you're selfish and you want it for yourselves. Boo hoo! Boo hoo!

This is a business. If they can get value for Gee, a decent player but no star, they will trade him in a heartbeat. And if they can't get elite prospects for Dickey and he is willing to sign an affordable extension, they'll keep him. But don't whine about the fact that they may trade him only because he won the C.Y. or he is too good and they don't really want to win. They may trade him because the return they can get will result in a better long term outcome than keeping him.

Sure, I don't agree with everything you say. Yet this might be the most enlightened thing you have ever said. There are plenty of us who believe it, for different reasons of course. But at this point there is nothing that would dictate that the Mets are in a position to be top spenders in FA, or other large contracts, for the next few years. Let alone right now.

The Coupons didn't rid themselves of expensive players, to start resigning more. They didn't slash a $140M payroll down to $90M, to start spending again.

They're gonna run a team that can win 80 games a year as cheaply as possible.

It's about owning a team, it's never been about winning with that team.

It will be awhile before they spend again. But it's not because they can't afford to.

The Mets were always a gold mine. My feeling was Mets and SNY profits were being siphoned away from the team to make up for the vanished false profits the Coupons had made from their stolen money. I was dubious about the rest of their "empire". Still kind of am. With their equity in SNY continuing to soar and getting away with Ponzi scheme #2 scot free, I now think the worst is behind them.

They've learned that some Mets fans will continue to watch the team and go to ballgames regardless of how little they spend on payroll. It's a version of what Loria is doing in Miami. I was surprised and disgusted so many fans continued to attend last year and kept their revenue somewhat steady.

I'm now inclined to agree with your assessment.

Fans need to stop going and stop watching. They also need to root hard that the Willets Point business owners win their legal actions to avoid having their land taken from them and given to the Wilpons. Otherwise the Mets may never be the Mets again - they'll be a zombie entity in Mets uniforms under Wilpon control - absolutely worthless to root for or pay attention to.

That is absolutely rediculous. You don't think you might be just a little bit biased, do you? You sound like a petulent baby whose parents are taking away his candy. Ooooh, if my candy wasn't so good, you'd let me keep it. You just want it because you're selfish and you want it for yourselves. Boo hoo! Boo hoo!

This is a business. If they can get value for Gee, a decent player but no star, they will trade him in a heartbeat. And if they can't get elite prospects for Dickey and he is willing to sign an affordable extension, they'll keep him. But don't whine about the fact that they may trade him only because he won the C.Y. or he is too good and they don't really want to win. They may trade him because the return they can get will result in a better long term outcome than keeping him.

The fear we all have is that they won't be able to afford him and will have to trade him for less value then he's worth. I'm not one the the super negative Mets fans and I'm not a super positive fan like you are. I am a realist. As of now they have shown me nothing regarding putting a good team on the field.

They knew they couldn't sign Reyes but they didn't trade him for fear of losing ticket sales. Not doing what is best for their team is pathetic.

If the mets can't afford dickey and other teams know it the mets will not get fair value in prospects fr Dickey.

That is absolutely rediculous. You don't think you might be just a little bit biased, do you? You sound like a petulent baby whose parents are taking away his candy. Ooooh, if my candy wasn't so good, you'd let me keep it. You just want it because you're selfish and you want it for yourselves. Boo hoo! Boo hoo!

This is a business. If they can get value for Gee, a decent player but no star, they will trade him in a heartbeat. And if they can't get elite prospects for Dickey and he is willing to sign an affordable extension, they'll keep him. But don't whine about the fact that they may trade him only because he won the C.Y. or he is too good and they don't really want to win. They may trade him because the return they can get will result in a better long term outcome than keeping him.

I've said many times the devil is in the details. You're absolutely right, anyone is tradeable for the right deal. But that's not what we're talking about here, or at least that's not what I'm talking about.

The Mets have given us every indication so far that winning is not the priority. Rather, the idea is to build a team by spending the least amount of money possible as opposed to putting the best players possible on the team.

Yes, I have a bias for Robert Allen. No newsflash there. But my biased is based on Dickey being the best pitcher in the NL this past season. And despite his age, he can be among the best pitchers in baseball for the next 5 seasons.

Why would any team be so eager to trade someone like that? I get that the Mets have a lot of holes. And to reiterate, yes, even RA should be traded for the right package of players.

Again, here's my concern: If he were under team control for the next 3 seasons, would the Mets be in conversations to trade him? If not, than these conversations are not based on what's best for the team but for what's best to keep the Wilpons as viable owners. And that, my good friend, is not a strategy compatible with winning baseball.

But you know what? You can ignore everything i just said. Go right ahead. But whatever you do, DON'T TAKE MY F-ING CANDY AWAY FROM ME!!!!!!!